im not talking about renting it. I'm talking about a better previewing system. Basically if I go to a record store, I can listen to the WHOLE album before I buy it. But at all the online stores, its 30 seconds. Record companies are paranoid about loosing money, so they will only agree to such an arangement based on financial RETURN.
I can't believe that you think renting music is bad, but PAYING to preview it once or twice is a good thing.
And Gene, you're right. The iPod IS a culture, and the only way to get in that culture is to buy into it, which means money for Apple and a great experience for the end user. I'm just trying to figure out who loses in this situation
Let me give you a hint... it's the sheeple who buy overpriced mediocre products (re: iPod) so they can be part of the fashion-conscious herd.
I can't believe that you think renting music is bad, but PAYING to preview it once or twice is a good thing.
That's just funny...
Where did I say it was a good idea ? I said that it might be feasable. I would personally not pay for either, but I can see it as a middle ground between renting it and buying it. I also went on to say that this could be done for free, but that the record companies would most likely not agree to such an arrangement.
Read the whole post before you pluck it apart will you ?
Now. Unless you give us an example of where other MP3 players are better (and possibly cheaper) - OR give valid points instead of insulting people, I'm not going to reply to any of your posts from now on. And I suggests others do the same.
And Gene, you're right. The iPod IS a culture, and the only way to get in that culture is to buy into it, which means money for Apple and a great experience for the end user. I'm just trying to figure out who loses in this situation \
Again, that is exactly what Apple wants you to believe. iPod is not culture at all, at least not more so than horses are. Horses are beatiful animals and looking at them being playful is a beautiful experience. You can buy a horse too, in fact, and you will have even more of that great experience as an 'end user'. But it certainly is no culture.
The objective in creating a culture is that you indirectly force people to want to be part of that culture. They create an entire ecosystem around that product and that ecosystem in its entirety is monetary. Culture is no such thing.
And people become part of that "culture" by paying for it, in hard cash, whereas culture, in its traditional meaning, is this:
Quote:
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively*
I just don't see where iPod fits in there. However, another word is exactly what iPod is:
Quote:
cult, noun
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders. ? [usu. as adj. ] a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society : a cult film.
The objective in creating a culture is that you indirectly force people to want to be part of that culture. They create an entire ecosystem around that product and that ecosystem in its entirety is monetary. Culture is no such thing.
And people become part of that "culture" by paying for it, in hard cash, whereas culture, in its traditional meaning, is this:
"the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively"
I just don't see where iPod fits in there.
I see your point, however. Have you been to iLounge.com? Plenty of art there (photgraphy, etc.) Human intellectual achievement? the iPod certainly qualifies. Add to that the intellectual achievements of countless third party accessories. Put all of that into a box and regard it collectively and you got yourself a culture!
I see your point, however. Have you been to iLounge.com? Plenty of art there (photgraphy, etc.) Human intellectual achievement? the iPod certainly qualifies. Add to that the intellectual achievements of countless third party accessories. Put all of that into a box and regard it collectively and you got yourself a culture!
Let me give you a hint... it's the sheeple who buy overpriced mediocre products (re: iPod) so they can be part of the fashion-conscious herd.
Tidelwav, how old are you? You sound like you're twelve. In fact, it sounds as though during your week at school, you were sitting in class when you learnt about the word 'mediocre', and since then have decided to use it as often as you can - without any real justification.
In short: you-are-a-knob
Also, what is wrong with fashion?
Fashion is more than simply joining in with whatever is going on around you - it helps define a point in time. You think of the 60s - you think of hippies. The 70s; you think of funky suits, platforms, flairs and disco (well there was always more than one fashion at any time, so depending on your knowledge/background you might think of something else, or all of the above and more).
A well-thought fashion should help depict the mood/attitude of the people it's worn by and the society they're living within (or perhaps the society they want to live in; eg i'm going to a fancy-dress party night as an old-school 80s B-Boy, 'cause i would have loved to been around when all that was kicking off).
Following fashion is not a bad idea, what's really stupid is following fashion BLINDLY. If you look good in a particular type of clothing, then wear it. If you don't, then find something else that you prefer.
But regarding the iPod: if you want a useful music player that can possibly hold your entire music collection, buy an iPod.
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
Interesting.
How, exactly, is the iPod a mediocre and overpriced product. As an average consumer like myself sees it, the iPod is a classy and well made media player that does what it is designed to do - very well. And apparently, 80% of the other average MP3 player consumer base agrees. Whether or not you agree on Apple's business strategy is a completely different topic, but don't kid yourself into thinking the two subjects are related.
The iPod itself is an excellent product. There really is no basis for an argument there whatsoever.
im not talking about renting it. I'm talking about a better previewing system. Basically if I go to a record store, I can listen to the WHOLE album before I buy it. But at all the online stores, its 30 seconds. Record companies are paranoid about loosing money, so they will only agree to such an arangement based on financial RETURN.
I'm nto talking about renting it at all... You never download the song to you computer, you stream it directly. In my oppinion, Apple could implement such a system for free, if they get permission from the record companies. They could give you one free full-length preview of each song for registered customers.
I'm not sure this would be a good idea.
Apple doesn't like low-quality. They give you a 30 second preview at the same quality as you download, so that you hear exactly what you're going to get. Although I do think slightly longer previews would be nice (30 seconds isn't enough to hear the start of some songs sometimes!) I don't think Apple would do full-length because it would be too easy to record the song and keep it.
It's a digital world out there, and there's always a way around protection, and someone determined enough is always going to find it.
I don't think Apple would do full-length because it would be too easy to record the song and keep it.
It's a digital world out there, and there's always a way around protection, and someone determined enough is always going to find it.
Jimzip
This is the biggest problem with Record Companies right now. They just don't get it. I think the majority of people are prepared to pay for getting their music. The music industry seem to think that everyone is a hardened criminal who has to be beaten into submission. People used Peer to Peer because it was the ONLY way to get just a song or two rather than buying an album full of music that you didn't want.
Yes, if you allow people to stream entire songs, there will be ways that people could save the data and then get the songs for free. But it wouldn't be as easy as just buying the song and they would know that they were doing something morally wrong. The majority, I am sure, would pay for the song if they liked it enough to want to keep it.
I'd be willing to bet that if full length previews were introduced, and the cost of tracks were reduced to 50 cents, and there was no more of the ridiculous "album only" crap, the usage of iTunes would go through the roof. Give people what they want, and they'll pay for it.
On the iTunes music rental front, yes, there clearly are people who want to acquire their music that way, so I'm not sure why Apple doesn't just offer that service along side "a la carte". I speculate that it's because they have good reason to fear that the music companies will soon decide to cease licensing music to rental services, and that would leave a lot of bad will for Apple.
I actually suspect that Apple may offer a subscription model sometime down the road...if they see that as a viable market. If they do, I expect that they would put most of the other subscription services out of business almost over night because they will have pretty much lost the only differentiating factor.
I also suspect that we might see Apple begin to license Fairplay. The Motorola deal was a "toe in the water" on that front. I could see a controlled roll-out of iTMS/iPod compatible licensees. But Apple needs to establish and solidify itself as the standard first. They are close I think.
Nothing. But paying too much for a mediocre product just to be part of the fashion cult is silly.
I understand that no one likes to be exposed for falling into the marketing trap, and that explains the ferocious responses from the children in this thread. But someone had to say it, and so i did.
But paying too much for a mediocre product just to be part of the fashion cult is silly.
I don't get it. We have asked you continuously to explain what is "mediocre" about the the iPod AND show us which mp3 player is better for $50 less. You have yet to do this. What is your problem? Have you painted yourself into a corner?
If you are just trolling, go away. If you genuinely believe the iPod is mediocre, back it up with an argument supporting your opinion.
I'll make it easy and get you started: Finish the sentences, "I think the iPod is mediocre because..." and "A better mp3 player for $50 less than the iPod is..."
I know it's hard not to reply to someone who's being such a twat (just because it's annoying when they think they've had the final say and that that somehow means they won the argument), but let's not let him derail the thread, which is meant to be about online music services. Where the hell are the moderators around here?
Does anyone have a suggestion as to why Apple haven't offered a subscription service? I have no interest in such a service myself, but recognise the fact that some people do. Surely if Apple offered such a service, they'd have an even bigger market share?
Maybe they fear that if their share of online music went up, the iPod would be even more popular and they already can't make enough of them to go around.
It's sad, he seems like an intelligent person from what I've seen in other threads. I don't know why he's humiliating himself like this here by trolling
I think one reason why Apple isn't getting a subscription service is because of pride for one. It would appear that they're getting a subscription service simply to compete with the other stores. Which is something that they don't need to do anyway. IMO I think the other stores wouldn't even be offering the subscription based model if they could compete with iTunes without it. But they can't, so that's how subscription was born to begin with. Apple doesn't have that problem at all, so why should they bother with it?
Does anyone have a suggestion as to why Apple haven't offered a subscription service?
My guess?
1. They don't need to.
2. They genuinely believe that people don't really want it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Surely if Apple offered such a service, they'd have an even bigger market share?
True...but they already have something like 80%. At this point they can afford to wait.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Maybe they fear that if their share of online music went up, the iPod would be even more popular and they already can't make enough of them to go around.
Well, since they appear to have about 80% of the digital music player market. If they went to 100%, with such a change, it would only result in a 25% increase in production. I expect they are at the point where they could handle that.
I think they realize that they will never have 100% of the market. There will always be people that won't buy Apple/iPod/etc. because of any number of reasons. Which means they effectively are close to 100% of their potential market. Now, it could drop over time. But we'd have to examine the reasons for the drop. Here are the reasons I could imagine:
1. Pricing
2. Music availability
3. Subscription option availability
4. Features (radio and recording)
5. Persistent quality issues
6. (iTMS) Music pricing
Here is my take on each of these:
1. So far Apple has been pretty competitive...even ahead of the competition on unit pricing. If they are behind, it usually by much, and, so far, the appeal of "iPod" covers the delta for them.
2. Again Apple is on par or ahead of the competitors...which casts much doubt on the whole "choice" argument made by some. Choice of what? Choice to go to a music store with less music? Of course the record companies could pull the plug, but people can get their music from other places (self-ripped CDs), etc.
3. I think Apple could turn this on in a minute if they need to.
4. They already have recording. Radio would be easy to add. No one really wants it at this point.
5. They have had some quality issues. They have addressed them quickly and continue to.
Apple probably (very correctly) sees subscription services as a volatile elephant in the room. If they were to begin one, they would have pressures to constantly keep songs in the library to avoid the "I could listen to it before, but I can't now!" complaints. Also, a subscription service is one that customers *expect* will exist forever. If iTMS were to ever go under, or if Apple were to need to cancel the subscription service, a lot of people would be very ticked off with Apple.
Having an ala carte service ensures that once you spend the money and download the song, there's essentially no more worries. If someone fails to buy a song and it disappears from the store, Apple's response could simply be "Hey, you didn't buy it when you had the chance, and you're not out any money. Sorry."
A subscription service just seems to be a can of worms that Apple doesn't want to open, and I completely understand why.
Comments
im not talking about renting it. I'm talking about a better previewing system. Basically if I go to a record store, I can listen to the WHOLE album before I buy it. But at all the online stores, its 30 seconds. Record companies are paranoid about loosing money, so they will only agree to such an arangement based on financial RETURN.
I can't believe that you think renting music is bad, but PAYING to preview it once or twice is a good thing.
That's just funny...
And Gene, you're right. The iPod IS a culture, and the only way to get in that culture is to buy into it, which means money for Apple and a great experience for the end user. I'm just trying to figure out who loses in this situation
Let me give you a hint... it's the sheeple who buy overpriced mediocre products (re: iPod) so they can be part of the fashion-conscious herd.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
Let me give you a hint... it's the sheeple who buy overpriced mediocre products (re: iPod) so they can be part of the fashion-conscious herd.
You're just trying to irritate people now. You're a real jerk
Originally posted by Tidelwav
I can't believe that you think renting music is bad, but PAYING to preview it once or twice is a good thing.
That's just funny...
Where did I say it was a good idea ? I said that it might be feasable. I would personally not pay for either, but I can see it as a middle ground between renting it and buying it. I also went on to say that this could be done for free, but that the record companies would most likely not agree to such an arrangement.
Read the whole post before you pluck it apart will you ?
Now. Unless you give us an example of where other MP3 players are better (and possibly cheaper) - OR give valid points instead of insulting people, I'm not going to reply to any of your posts from now on. And I suggests others do the same.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
And Gene, you're right. The iPod IS a culture, and the only way to get in that culture is to buy into it, which means money for Apple and a great experience for the end user. I'm just trying to figure out who loses in this situation
Again, that is exactly what Apple wants you to believe. iPod is not culture at all, at least not more so than horses are. Horses are beatiful animals and looking at them being playful is a beautiful experience. You can buy a horse too, in fact, and you will have even more of that great experience as an 'end user'. But it certainly is no culture.
The objective in creating a culture is that you indirectly force people to want to be part of that culture. They create an entire ecosystem around that product and that ecosystem in its entirety is monetary. Culture is no such thing.
And people become part of that "culture" by paying for it, in hard cash, whereas culture, in its traditional meaning, is this:
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively*
I just don't see where iPod fits in there. However, another word is exactly what iPod is:
cult, noun
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders. ? [usu. as adj. ] a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society : a cult film.
Cult and culture are different, as you can see.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
The objective in creating a culture is that you indirectly force people to want to be part of that culture. They create an entire ecosystem around that product and that ecosystem in its entirety is monetary. Culture is no such thing.
And people become part of that "culture" by paying for it, in hard cash, whereas culture, in its traditional meaning, is this:
"the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively"
I just don't see where iPod fits in there.
I see your point, however. Have you been to iLounge.com? Plenty of art there (photgraphy, etc.) Human intellectual achievement? the iPod certainly qualifies. Add to that the intellectual achievements of countless third party accessories. Put all of that into a box and regard it collectively and you got yourself a culture!
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
I see your point, however. Have you been to iLounge.com? Plenty of art there (photgraphy, etc.) Human intellectual achievement? the iPod certainly qualifies. Add to that the intellectual achievements of countless third party accessories. Put all of that into a box and regard it collectively and you got yourself a culture!
Or a "highlevel" cult 8)
Originally posted by Tidelwav
Let me give you a hint... it's the sheeple who buy overpriced mediocre products (re: iPod) so they can be part of the fashion-conscious herd.
Tidelwav, how old are you? You sound like you're twelve. In fact, it sounds as though during your week at school, you were sitting in class when you learnt about the word 'mediocre', and since then have decided to use it as often as you can - without any real justification.
In short: you-are-a-knob
Also, what is wrong with fashion?
Fashion is more than simply joining in with whatever is going on around you - it helps define a point in time. You think of the 60s - you think of hippies. The 70s; you think of funky suits, platforms, flairs and disco (well there was always more than one fashion at any time, so depending on your knowledge/background you might think of something else, or all of the above and more).
A well-thought fashion should help depict the mood/attitude of the people it's worn by and the society they're living within (or perhaps the society they want to live in; eg i'm going to a fancy-dress party night as an old-school 80s B-Boy, 'cause i would have loved to been around when all that was kicking off).
Following fashion is not a bad idea, what's really stupid is following fashion BLINDLY. If you look good in a particular type of clothing, then wear it. If you don't, then find something else that you prefer.
But regarding the iPod: if you want a useful music player that can possibly hold your entire music collection, buy an iPod.
If you just want one to be cool; get a life.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
Interesting.
How, exactly, is the iPod a mediocre and overpriced product. As an average consumer like myself sees it, the iPod is a classy and well made media player that does what it is designed to do - very well. And apparently, 80% of the other average MP3 player consumer base agrees. Whether or not you agree on Apple's business strategy is a completely different topic, but don't kid yourself into thinking the two subjects are related.
The iPod itself is an excellent product. There really is no basis for an argument there whatsoever.
GeneClean, I didn't want to sound like I was arguing, I'm not sure I caught the drift of your last post.
Can we all just chill out? People are getting way too serious about all this.
In short we've learned:
That there are trolls on this forum.
That some people like to rent their music, others like to buy it.
That the iPod isn't always the music player of choice.
And that we already knew all this stuff..
Sheesh, the thread was started cause someone thought an MS article was funny..
Jimzip
Originally posted by BoeManE
im not talking about renting it. I'm talking about a better previewing system. Basically if I go to a record store, I can listen to the WHOLE album before I buy it. But at all the online stores, its 30 seconds. Record companies are paranoid about loosing money, so they will only agree to such an arangement based on financial RETURN.
I'm nto talking about renting it at all... You never download the song to you computer, you stream it directly. In my oppinion, Apple could implement such a system for free, if they get permission from the record companies. They could give you one free full-length preview of each song for registered customers.
I'm not sure this would be a good idea.
Apple doesn't like low-quality. They give you a 30 second preview at the same quality as you download, so that you hear exactly what you're going to get. Although I do think slightly longer previews would be nice (30 seconds isn't enough to hear the start of some songs sometimes!) I don't think Apple would do full-length because it would be too easy to record the song and keep it.
It's a digital world out there, and there's always a way around protection, and someone determined enough is always going to find it.
Jimzip
Originally posted by Jimzip
I don't think Apple would do full-length because it would be too easy to record the song and keep it.
It's a digital world out there, and there's always a way around protection, and someone determined enough is always going to find it.
Jimzip
This is the biggest problem with Record Companies right now. They just don't get it. I think the majority of people are prepared to pay for getting their music. The music industry seem to think that everyone is a hardened criminal who has to be beaten into submission. People used Peer to Peer because it was the ONLY way to get just a song or two rather than buying an album full of music that you didn't want.
Yes, if you allow people to stream entire songs, there will be ways that people could save the data and then get the songs for free. But it wouldn't be as easy as just buying the song and they would know that they were doing something morally wrong. The majority, I am sure, would pay for the song if they liked it enough to want to keep it.
I'd be willing to bet that if full length previews were introduced, and the cost of tracks were reduced to 50 cents, and there was no more of the ridiculous "album only" crap, the usage of iTunes would go through the roof. Give people what they want, and they'll pay for it.
On the iTunes music rental front, yes, there clearly are people who want to acquire their music that way, so I'm not sure why Apple doesn't just offer that service along side "a la carte". I speculate that it's because they have good reason to fear that the music companies will soon decide to cease licensing music to rental services, and that would leave a lot of bad will for Apple.
I also suspect that we might see Apple begin to license Fairplay. The Motorola deal was a "toe in the water" on that front. I could see a controlled roll-out of iTMS/iPod compatible licensees. But Apple needs to establish and solidify itself as the standard first. They are close I think.
Also, what is wrong with fashion?
Nothing. But paying too much for a mediocre product just to be part of the fashion cult is silly.
I understand that no one likes to be exposed for falling into the marketing trap, and that explains the ferocious responses from the children in this thread. But someone had to say it, and so i did.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
But paying too much for a mediocre product just to be part of the fashion cult is silly.
I don't get it. We have asked you continuously to explain what is "mediocre" about the the iPod AND show us which mp3 player is better for $50 less. You have yet to do this. What is your problem? Have you painted yourself into a corner?
If you are just trolling, go away. If you genuinely believe the iPod is mediocre, back it up with an argument supporting your opinion.
I'll make it easy and get you started: Finish the sentences, "I think the iPod is mediocre because..." and "A better mp3 player for $50 less than the iPod is..."
Does anyone have a suggestion as to why Apple haven't offered a subscription service? I have no interest in such a service myself, but recognise the fact that some people do. Surely if Apple offered such a service, they'd have an even bigger market share?
Maybe they fear that if their share of online music went up, the iPod would be even more popular and they already can't make enough of them to go around.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Does anyone have a suggestion as to why Apple haven't offered a subscription service?
My guess?
1. They don't need to.
2. They genuinely believe that people don't really want it.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Surely if Apple offered such a service, they'd have an even bigger market share?
True...but they already have something like 80%. At this point they can afford to wait.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Maybe they fear that if their share of online music went up, the iPod would be even more popular and they already can't make enough of them to go around.
Well, since they appear to have about 80% of the digital music player market. If they went to 100%, with such a change, it would only result in a 25% increase in production. I expect they are at the point where they could handle that.
I think they realize that they will never have 100% of the market. There will always be people that won't buy Apple/iPod/etc. because of any number of reasons. Which means they effectively are close to 100% of their potential market. Now, it could drop over time. But we'd have to examine the reasons for the drop. Here are the reasons I could imagine:
1. Pricing
2. Music availability
3. Subscription option availability
4. Features (radio and recording)
5. Persistent quality issues
6. (iTMS) Music pricing
Here is my take on each of these:
1. So far Apple has been pretty competitive...even ahead of the competition on unit pricing. If they are behind, it usually by much, and, so far, the appeal of "iPod" covers the delta for them.
2. Again Apple is on par or ahead of the competitors...which casts much doubt on the whole "choice" argument made by some. Choice of what? Choice to go to a music store with less music? Of course the record companies could pull the plug, but people can get their music from other places (self-ripped CDs), etc.
3. I think Apple could turn this on in a minute if they need to.
4. They already have recording. Radio would be easy to add. No one really wants it at this point.
5. They have had some quality issues. They have addressed them quickly and continue to.
6. This is similar to #2.
Having an ala carte service ensures that once you spend the money and download the song, there's essentially no more worries. If someone fails to buy a song and it disappears from the store, Apple's response could simply be "Hey, you didn't buy it when you had the chance, and you're not out any money. Sorry."
A subscription service just seems to be a can of worms that Apple doesn't want to open, and I completely understand why.